260900 - Letter to Stephen Doughty MP.pdf

cannot determine disputes of fact or revisit decisions made by the courts. 
  
The land was first registered in the early 1980s. Our records show that applications were made 
on behalf of BP Properties Limited and that documentary evidence supporting its title was 
provided. HM Land Registry was satisfied at the time that the evidence established the title and 
the land was registered. Our records do not show that HM Land Registry was made aware of a 
competing claim before the registrations took place. 
  
The issue of adverse possession was subsequently considered by the courts. In BP Properties 
Limited v Buckler [1987], the Court of Appeal found that an offer by the landowner allowing 
continued occupation meant that the occupation was no longer adverse. The court therefore 
concluded that the documentary title holders remained entitled to the land. 
  
I recognise that Requester disputes the circumstances surrounding the case and believes 
important information was not available to the court. However, HM Land Registry cannot reopen 
or overturn a decision made by the courts. If Requester believes that evidence was withheld from 
the court or that the court was misled, that is a matter that would need to be addressed through 
the judicial system. 
  
Having reviewed the matter, I am satisfied that HM Land Registry registered the land on the 
documentary evidence provided to us at the time, and that the central issue raised by Requester 
was subsequently considered by the courts. I have therefore been unable to identify any further 
action that HM Land Registry can properly take in relation to the registration. 
  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 of 2 
 
 
 
I appreciate that this will not be the outcome Requester was hoping for, particularly given how 
long this matter has continued and how strongly he feels about it. Thank you for taking the time to 
raise his concerns with us. 
 
Yours sincerely, 
 
  Iain Banfield 
  Chief Executive and Chief Land Registrar